Berg v. Obama and Common Sense

What is the deal with Obama’s birth certificate and citizenship status?

… , Philip J. Berg, a former Deputy AG of Pennsylvania and a professed Hillary supporter, filed a lawsuit claiming Obama is not constitutionally eligible to be president; instead of simply clearing up any questions — which you would think would take about five minutes — Obama’s lawyers moved to dismiss the suit and failed to file a timely answer, meaning that, under the applicable rules (according to Berg), Obama is legally deemed to have admitted Berg’s allegations that he is constitutionally ineligible to be president. . . .

Has anyone around here looked into this? Is it a serious issue, and why does Obama seem to be so squirmy about it?

This seemed in my wheelhouse. So I checked out the docket of Berg v. Obama et al., 08-cv-04083-RBS (EDPA).

First up, here’s the complaint, followed in short order by Judge Surrick’s order denying Berg’s TRO, seeking to disqualify Obama. Pretty summary, eh? Maybe it’s because Berg doesn’t have standing, and thus Surrick can’t bring himself to waste time better devoted to actual litigants with real cases-in-controversy.

Next up, here’s Obama’s motion to dismiss, and Berg’s opposition. Not surprisingly, Obama then moved to stay discovery pending resolution of the dispositive motion. Here’s the FEC, joining Obama’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Those dispositive motions are all pending. Now, I’ve no idea what Berg has been telling McCarthy, but in civil court, filing a motion to dismiss an original complaint tolls the time in which a defendant has to answer a complaint. (FRCP 12(4).)

Obama (and the FEC) have admitted nothing, and no judge in the Country would find to the contrary.

[Just to be clear, I have no informed views about the merits of the Obama citizenship theory, though I’m inclined to think it is silly based on what I’ve read. Nor do I have informed views about whether the standing rule which prohibits Berg’s claims is a normatively desirable one. All I’m saying is this: McCarthy claimed, based on bad information I think, that Obama’s failure to answer was consequential. That’s plainly wrong.]

Share

Dave Hoffman

Dave Hoffman is the Murray Shusterman Professor of Transactional and Business Law at Temple Law School. He specializes in law and psychology, contracts, and quantitative analysis of civil procedure. He currently teaches contracts, civil procedure, corporations, and law and economics.

Danney I give you Magna Cum Laude for your excellent efforts — I know you haven’t graduated yet, but when a law student can change the course of history, some serious praise is in order.

My comments on what you’ve shown me today:

Alan Keyes would have been much better off to just join the Berg case. That case is going to be argued for and against granting the Writ of Certiorari on December 1, 2008 — in two weeks time. If Keyes had joined the Berg case, the standing issue might have been resolved. I assume that Keyes really was on the ballot in some state as a Presidential candidate. Any candidate really on the ballot, clearly has standing. They have been specifically injured in ways that Berg has not. The standing rules are a very harsh and paradoxical part of our laws, but they have been there for 50 years, and tested in the Supreme Court at least six times, so they are like the rock of ages — not likely to budge or be budged.

Keyes is a person of no small ego — I don’t think this makes me a critic, simply an observer. Anyone who has ever heard him speak can judge if I speak rightly on this point.

Ego sometimes gets in the way of doing the best and most efficient thing. People who get things done usually don’t care who gets the credit — they don’t have to start their own lawsuit in their own name, they could just join another, more advanced lawsuit already in progress and about to be argued in the Supreme Court.

Turning to a second point, the Martin v Lingle case looks very promising if there really is a typed version of the Hawai’i birth certificate. Possibly Martin should add the Hawai’i Secretary of State as a defendant if that can be done without delaying the case — if he can still amend as a matter of right. The typed record might at least show the hospital in Hawai’i where Obama was born supposedly. By doing that it would lead to further and better evidence in the Hospital’s records. 1961 is not so long ago that all those records in the warehouses would have been destroyed or lost by now. If the right hospital were known, the original birth paperwork by the Doctors and nurses would be available and probably an excellent source of correct and truthful data.

I am pleased that there are gallant men who are willing to send letters to Condi Rice similar to my own. It’s a commitment of time to re-write my letter, get it on paper, and send it out. I praise those people for their courage, for their commitment, for their unselfishness.

Please try of keep a record of all people who do send in such letters. The Legion of American Patriots might be names that really should shine because out of 300 million people they are the few who care.

The Founders felt that it was asking too much for the Commander in Chief to be anything other than a natural born American — asking too much of the persons in uniform — that they should without question obey the orders of a National Command Authority who might be working for another country not this one. On matters of political philosophy these Founders were perhaps the smartest and most educated people that have ever existed in the world. Their phrases ring in our ears, their document is kept in a glass case at the National Archives, their intentions resonate in our hearts. At least in the hearts of some of those Air Force and Army guys you’ve told me about. I don’t mind being out on Desolation Row or Highway 61 but it gives me great joy and deep satisfaction when another person, or several others stand up and say “Yes, we also want Condi Rice to do the right thing!”

Eigernorthface, Thank you as well for your tutelage. I will strive and is my goal to obtain the honor of Magnum cum Laude as a practicing experienced professional you are on course to give me far more to think about and reason then books, lecture or internet research. As I said before some that lecture have political interests over the teaching. It is also said that what you learn in the institutions of learning most does not always apply in the real practice. Experience always is the best teacher. I hope that you will remain the one that points me when I am going the wrong direction and gives me a priceless wealth of real law situations.

I will give my best and as I love the study of law, study of history, American culture and how greatness was blessed on our country. I am a firm believer that our founders had far more wisdom the them of failed Empires. I see our founders took great lesson from the Roman Empire and its misgivings.The lessons learn was not to follow mistakes that brought it down. We in our lifetime has seen to fall of the Soviet Empire but often some forget that the ideas followed by the Soviet empire was its misdoing and attempt to try again these without regard to human natures desire for freedom with only good laws limiting citizens freedom. By granting reward for efforts to succeed then limiting government to allow the process of success and granting powers to people under good law. Understanding the need for sovereignty in leaders elected thus banning those with duo alliances(duo citizenship or citizenship other then and place of birth that commands patriotism to that place). This gives true leadership with the interest of those lead and also the interest of the country they lead. The reason I did not support Obama is because even if he has proven to be a natural born and a citizen with association of ones that apparently influenced him wrongly. His allegiances to a group and one that has wrongly blamed Americans for problems suffered from the very actions of the group creating these problems.

I am challenged in my study but more important is my patriotic duty. I am not a person to stand down and wait until others do something but stand up and do as much as I am able and then encourage others to follow. When I believe something in deed is effecting or can effect negatively our great country I will use my experience and training as a leader within the military and my fortitude to never give in until the problem is scourged.

I realize we as 2 cannot do this alone that we do need the resources of many. Two candle only lights a small area but them candles can light other candles, torches and bonfires that brings light if done enough to the world. You have lit the first then mine and I will lite many others. The military members are a great resource as they come from all walks of life and places. They are true patriots as members are voluntary. They are sworn to uphold the constitution even to death. We as a group will get this done.

I think we have the basis for some action in place. It is quite importent that when the military guys send their letters to Condi Rice they also send in a copy to the Editors of the Editorial Page of their local newspapers. These would be then published as Op-Ed letters.

It’s good but not effective to ask Condi Rice to do a proper inquiry and to do the right thing. It’s not effective because she can simply collect a few hundred letters in a file, then the file gets shredded as part of the ordinary document retention protocol — it would stay for one year or two years — but then get shredded.

However, if the respectful requests the Secreatary of State have been published by little town newspapers all over the country, it not as easy for her to disregard the whole matter.

The basis strategy of government is to disregard everything they are not compelled to respond to in some way.

If they have to respond to this, they can try to make a case that the four little questions are too impertinent to be worthy of their time and attention. But that case would only be plausible if the four questions were really hard to answer, imposing an onerous and burdensome process of inquiry on a busy and dutiful Secretary of State. It would be easier for them to just answer the questions. The first two are just yes or no, and Condi is in a better position than any other American to verify with Indonesia and Pakistan the answers. The second two questions would be very easy to answer if Obama would disclose where and when he took the Oath of Allegiance. This is the sort of thing that would stick in a person’s mind — so I don’t think he could plausibly say — I know I did but I can’t remember exactly where or when. Once we have a location and time, it could take as much as a day or two to get the file out of the warehouse, and check the list. They don’t do those Oaths without making a list and keeping it as a permanent record, in fact those records should be collected in a central file at the State Department, so Condi could just look it up in her own Offices there on C street, or in the GSA warehouse that provides permanent long-term records storage.

If she knows she has to do her job, and she knows the job is easy to do, the pressure to just go ahead and do it will be stronger than the natural governmental response which is to skate by and hope it blows over.

It’s much better to figure this out now than a year or two into the Obama Administration — so our letter writing patriots are doing America a favor — no matter which way it comes out after a proper inquiry has been made. Somebody with undeniable standing is bound to join the Berg case sooner or later. That case or a clone of it will rattle around in the courts until the central core issue is put to rest, which could be done right now, for very little money with very little fuss.

We have enough problems in this country right now without installing into the Office of President a person about which there are plausible doubts based upon simple matters of fact and easily obtainable documentary evidence which could be brought forward to allay the doubts and end the matter once and for all. Four little questions — let the People see them, then they can judge, is it the question askers that have a problem or is it Condi Rice?

The government will do the right thing every time about 60 seconds after that becomes the last viable alternative for them to follow. The main threat we face is the shredder. The way to avoid it, is to make the questions public enough so that dropping the file into the shredder does not do the government any good. They will answer as soon as they see they have no other plausible decent choice — every other avenue has been closed off.

On this site I explained to cut and paste to word doc format or printable and send out via USPS.

Then passed around via stumble upon. So far has reachieved 426 hits. I am sure we will get some response from others. I have also posted this on numerous conservative blogs. I believe we will get a reach what we needed.

Danney here is a note I posted on the thread created today about the Keyes case:

Keyes should have just joined the Berg case as an additional plaintiff. This would have eliminated the standing question in the Berg case and allowed the facts to be gotten to sooner.

There’s is no point in Obama offerring up any documents on the internet. It will take a trained document examiner the better part of a week to examine and come to a conclusion about any document he does offer up. I mean a person with 20 years of experience at the FBI or CIA in forensic document authentication — and they will need to obtain a variety of samples for comparison — so let’s just say a week by a highly trained and extensively experienced career professional.

In the meantime, internet speculations, about this or that document are a total waste of time. This sort of thing is done with a big microscope, a reflection spectrometer, lab equipment to test paper content, and ink content, a gas chromatograph, and a variety of techniques involving osmosis such as eletrophoresis. It’s not something that an “expert” from fact check or anywhere else can see on their computer screen.

In any case, the location of Obama’s birth, is the least strong of Berg’s claims — the one least likely to lead to an opinion that disposes of the case.

The strongest Berg claim has to do with Obama’s travel to Pakistan in 1981, when he was 20 years old, on an Indonesian passport. Did this really happen or not? If it did, it is significant because a 20 year old person is not a minor. That act would constitute self-expatriation. The expatriation could be reversed only by later taking the Oath of Allegiance before a judicial or consular officer or the Attorney General.

Anyone taking such an oath would remember where and when they did it. If Obama did take such a oath, he could point us to where and when. Then it’s just a question of looking in the files. They keep files about that. The data is also kept at the State Department either at C Street in Washington, or in their GSA leased warehouse for long-term storage of official records. It’s a five cent problem if Obama took the oath and discloses where and when he did that.

Condi Rice needs to answer four little questions before she certifies the outcome of the Electoral College vote:

1. Did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981?

2. Did Obama enter Pakistan on an Indonesian passport?

3. Did Obama subsequently take the Oath of Allegiance to reclaim and restore his US citizenship?

4. If so, where did he do that, and when was the oath taken?

The total cost of answering these four little questions is extremely small — it could take as much as a week and cost as much as $100 — including phonecalls to Pakistan and Indonesia.

If Condi Rice knowingly makes a false official statement in certifying the vote of the Electoral College, that would be a felony. If she fails to make a simple and frugal inquiry into the Indonesia/Pakistan/Oath of Allegiance matter, that would be gross and willful dereliction of duty, which would be a serious offense, if not a felony.

The Article II requirement is not a detail. It goes to the issue of good order and discipline in the military. These are people at all ranks from General to private who may be asked to lay down their lives at the direction and command of the President. The Founders thought they needed to know that the Article II requirements were met. The Founders knew more about political philosophy and having amazingly astute foresight than anybody alive before then or since their time — and surely more than anybody alive today — and most certainly more than anybody blogging on the internet, myself included.

Eigernorthface has approved this message 17 Nov 08 1825 EST

Posted by: Eigernorthface at November 17, 2008 06:28 PM

I’m pleased, and all the active duty people and vets I’ve talked to in my little town and around the country, with the fact that there’s some letters being written. As, I say, getting them onto the Op-Ed pages of small town newspapers is very important — that’s what keeps our whole file out of the State Department shredder. They have to KNOW they can’t skate by this.

I am handling incredible responses from my military friends and much more. I will in my reply insist that they get this to the news papers. I will make it easy for them to do so as I will improve the letter to include a press release later.

I do agree this is the best way to pursue factual proof as it is the easiest and most likely to succeed.

Danney — I have received new information to the effect that Condi Rice may not be the one to certify the results of the Electoral College. I’m not sure on that point amymore. The following post was put up today and it explains where I come out on that point as of this moment. The green card has come back from Condi Rice’s Office, so I know my letter to her was delivered, which respectfully asks the four questions. She is ideally positioned to answer them, and this is the right moment to do that work, not a year or two into the Obama Administration. The sentence in my letter which describes Condi Rice as the official that certifies the results of the Electoral College, may be deleted, since I’m not sure it’s true, but the four questions should still be be addressed to her at this time — that part is OK.

Article II, section 1, paragraph 3 does give the procedure that Bama 1L describes. He may be correct on the issue of Condi Rice certifying the result of the Electoral College vote. As the U.S. Secretary of State she is however ideally situated to acquire the information in the four questions:

1. Did Obama travel to Pakistan in 1981?

2. Did he do so on an Indonesian passport?

3. Did he subsequently take the Oath of Allegiance to restore his U.S. citizenship?

4. If so, where is the paperwork on that transaction — can the written record be produced?

These are questions of international law requiring diplomatic efforts to get the answers, at least for questions 1 and 2. For questions 3 and 4 it is most likely that if Obama did take the Oath of Allegiance the records of that fact would be retained at the State Department long term archives. This would be true even if he took the Oath of Allegiance in a Federal Court, or before the U.S. Attorney General.

So Condi may not be the certifier of the Electoral College vote, but she is certainly the person who should get the first opportunity to come up with the answers to the four questions.

None of those questions are non justiciable.

None of those questions are “political questions” within the meaning of that term under American caselaw. These are straight up matters of fact — he travelled or he didn’t, on an Indonesian passport, or not, then he took the Oath of Allegiance or he didn’t, and there’s paperwork on that or there’s not. No part of these four questions requires or admits of the exercise of political choicemaking or political discretion. They are as much political questions as the location of the Washington Monument is a political question — in other words — they are not at all political questions. They are matters of fact, no more, no less.

Let’s assume that all the certifying is done right there in the Congress, with the President of the Senate presiding over the proceedings. Would these proceedings be subject ot judicial review? Would any participant be subject to a Writ of Mandamus commanding that certain inquiries be made, and successfully brought to their factual outcomes before the final determination is made of who was in fact legitimately elected?

This is a tough question. The Constitution does not specify any set of inquiries that must be made to assure that the requirements of Article II section 1 have been met. Does this mean that the Electors are free to be 100% perfectly negligent about making sure a candidate is eligible? Could they, for example, just glance at a purported document offered up on the internet, and then proclaim themselves to be fully satisfied, no further inquiries needed? How about if they got the newspaper clipping from Hawai’i where rhe Obama Baby birth is announced — could they say “Sure he’s a citizen, see it’s right there in the paper! Let’s move on to other business!”

I would suggest that the Electors must behave as reasonable persons in order to escape judicial review of their actions. They have to take reasonable steps to assure that the Constitution is being complied with. Otherwise, the Court can command them to take those steps. Let’s call that checks and balances. The counting of the votes and the certifying of the winner is a political question as long as the participants do so in a reasonable manner. That has got to be the intent of the Constitution. This means that if they act in an arbitrary, capricious, willful, or grossly negligent manner, then what they do may be amended and guided by Writs from the Courts. This is not like the passage of ordinary legislation. Under Marbury v Madison it is the duty of the Supreme Court to say what the Constitution means, and in this case whether it is being properly complied with.

With regard to the DNC, the FEC, the Obama Litigators — one must observe that if they were trying to create a constitutional crisis, they would not act any differently than the way they have actually acted. The evasiveness, the secretiveness, the stonewalling, the refusal to disclose information freely that people have a right to ask about, and be concerned about, and want answers about. Many organizations in this world do not act in reasonable ways — the DNC is an excellent example at this time, but the Obama Litigators have got to come is a close second.

One way or another it would be far better to resolve this matter before January 20th than after. Condi Rice could play a pro-active role getting the four little questions answered — or it could all be left to a mad scramble at the very last minute.

The possible need to review British law is an interesting twist. So is Obama a Kenyan, and Indonesian, or an American? Hard to say. I don’t think the Electors have the resources to figure it out, and I don’t think they have the leeway to be 100% negligent about it — just nonchalant, sans souci, devil may care about it.

The Supreme Court should head off the crisis by hearing the Berg case on its merits, and if the merits are good enough, directing that a proper investigation be done — probably led by Condi Rice with the assistance of the Attorney General.

I’ve never suggested any conspiracy in connection with the eligibility of Obama.

I’m ready to accept the idea of no involvement by the Courts. It sounds like it would be part of the Constitution. I see the analogy to Article I section 5, it seems apt and germaine.

OK so if it’s up to the Electors, I guess my question is where are they going to get their data from — what’s the machinery by means of which they will investigate this matter.

The Electors don’t have a State Department, or an FBI, or a CIA to do the fieldwork for them — how will they get it done?

Are they going to just use their intuition? Would it be something they decide from the gut?

Don’t you think it would be better for Condi Rice right now that she has my letter (green card right here in my hand) and maybe a few dozen more asking the same thing — wouldn’t it be better for her to just find out the answers?

What would it cost $100, a couple of phone calls. What would it take a day, two days?

Why does the government always have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing the obvious simple right thing? Why does Berg have to sue. Why does Keyes have to sue. Why can’t somebody in the government just do their jobs — even without being sued — even without a Writ of Mandamus from the Supreme Court — just do their jobs.

No one ever expected the DNC or the FEC do any job besides taking their paychecks to the bank — that’s their job — no one thinks they are goign to do more than that. OK great — but how about a little investigative work by the State Department and the FBI and the CIA.

I’m not talking about deciding who can run for election. I’m just talking about making sure the Article II requirements are met. I’ve never offered the idea of conspiracy in any of my posts except to say that I have no suggestion along those lines. Obama is a fellow with much audacity — that’s not a conspiracy, right, to be audacious.

I want the electors to do the right thing — whether a Court tells them to do it or not. Your idea seems right to me — I’m happy to keep the courts out of it. But I’m not happy to have an inelligible man inaugurated.

The Founders wouldn’t be either in my opinion. They made Article II the way it was for a reason. Nobody should be asked to die by anyone but a fellow countryman. Any doubts about this matter undermines good order and discipline in the military. It’s a practical measure. We could call it a matter of prudence and practical ethics — like in the Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle) and in The Politics (Aristotle Again). Both of these books were read by the Founders.

So, keep the courts out OK — but if you do that how can you insure the Electors will do the right thing and not just let every doubt skate by. Isn’t the lazy thing what most people do most of the time unless they feel someone is there to insist on the right thing being done? Can the Electors be reliably distinguished from slackers? Will they pay attention and get it right? What resources will they command to help them do that? What would be the harm in spending $100 right now to look into the matter a bit?

I fear the Obama people doth protest too much. If they have nothing to hide, nothing to be swept under the rug, why not put the matter to rest — open up everything they have and know — let the sun shine in.

I don’t think there’s a conspiracy, but I think the whole matter is being handled in a very dumb way by just about everybody in Washington, and who plans to come to Washington. Let’s call it a parallelism of dumbness — not a conspiracy — or we could call it a mutuality of not-my-jobism where everyone agrees the question is too hot to handle — so nobody does. No conspiracy is required, only that good men do nothing, and a foreigner may wind up in the Oval Office.

Would it be helpful if we changed the letter to address to the Secretary of State in them states where as the withholding of electors voting until proof is provided would hold up the process? or are we barking up a tree the same as Alan Keyes?

As I understand the Secretary of State of these states is the primary certification authority. As in Bush vs Gore the election process was finished of by the Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris certifying the vote.

This may or may not bring to the attention of SCOTUS but as in Bush vs Gore most likely that is where it will head. They being the authority should demand the proof.

No Danney — Keep the letters addressed to Condi Rice, not because she can de-certify the Electors, but because she is the person best positioned to get to the bottom of the problem — get the real data and solve the issue.

The problem with the State Secretaries of State is that they are essentially helpless to have any meaningful impact on getting official records type information out of Indonesia and Pakistan.

Condi has the right office and the right clout to accomplish the mission. She can find out if Obama ever held an Indonesian passport. She can inquire and get a real answer on whether he travelled to Pakistan in 1981 using his Indonesian passport. She would have a record of any oath of allegiance that Obama might have taken subsequent to 1981 to re-claim his US citizenship. Our State Department in Washington theoretically knows who our citizens are — they keep files about ex-patriated people who re-claim their citizenship. It’s in long-term storage — probably a GSA warehouse — Condi could have it in her office in an hour or two if she asked for it. Of course doing that efficiently requires that Obama cooperate and tell us where and when he took the oath of allegiance to re-claim his US citizenship after travelling on a foreign passport as an adult of sound mind acting voluntarily — a 20 year old person — not a kidnap victim, not mentally impaired — his free choice to represent himself as an Indonesian for purposes of entering Pakistan in 1981 — if he did that — he ex-patriated himself. If he later re-claimed US citizenship Condi would have 1000 times better access to the data than any State Secretary of State.

The only problem with the Berg and Keyes cases is that Berg arguably does not have standing, and Keyes does not have the hearing scheduled in the US Supreme Court in about 10 days time. His case is still working its way up through the system — it’s not advanced enough procedurally to get to the Supreme Court in time to do much good before Obama is inaugurated. Now if those two guys could get together, they would have something real. Berg’s standing problem would be eliminated if Keyes joined him as a co-plaintiff. And Keyes timing problem would be eliminated if he could join a case that was far more advanced in terms of its progress through the courts.

The Keyes case does have the advantage of going directly after the California Electors. If the Obama electors could be directed not to vote for inelligible Obama but to vote for someone else — anyone else who is eligible — then Obama’s victory over McCain would be a lot closer. Another case or two like the Keyes case, maybe from New York or Florida or Ohio, and McCain might emerge as the clear winner — the eligible guy who gets the most votes in the Electoral College.

But for right now, the key is to solve the problem by getting the real data. Nobody is better positioned than Condi Rice to do that. So just remove the words “who wants to do her duty as the official that certifies the results of the Electoral College process.”

Leave everything else as it is — especially the letters going to Condi Rice. She has the duty because she has the position from which this problem can best be investigated — as the state Secretaries of State do not — they are helpless to solve a problem like this one.

I’m not 100% sure this problem should be resolved by the Courts. It might be a non-justiciable political question — something that the Constitution says should be resolved, without Court interference in the Electoral college. Article I Section 5 suggests a parallel and clearly calls for the matter to be handled by the legislative branch, not the Courts.

But if a proper investigation is done, and I don’t think the Electoral College is in a position to do that, it does not matter who resolves the issue. The truth resolves the issue in any branch. If Obama is a foreigner, then the Courts wouldn’t let him be inaugurated, but neither would the Electoral College.

So getting to the truth is much more important than getting the ideal case filed. Condi can get to the truth. So let’s petition her to do that. Let’s make it a petition that appears on Op Ed pages in small town papers all over the USA, so she can’t hide from it. People will want to know what steps she has taken to get to the bottom of the central question.

Remember Watergate — where Deep Throat says “Follow the money” — well in this case it’s more like “Follow the truth”. Doing that will lead to the right outcome in any and all branches.

Let me see if I get this straight, the mother from Kansas goes to school in Hawai’i where she meets a guy from Kenya whom she marries and has a child by. Then she divorces the Kenya guy, and marries a guy from Indonesia. Then she takes the child (Obama) to Indonesia, where he attends Indonesian school. Then at age 20 he travels to Pakistan on an Indonesian Passport. Then he shows up in Southside Chicago — he goes to Columbia then Harvard Law School, then comes back to Southside to work as a community organizer. Then he’s elected to the Illinois Legislature — then the U.S. Senate — then possibly the Presidency of the USA.

What does this sound like to you? Does it sound anything like a conspiracy? Doesn’t it sound more like a crazy quilt topsy turvy existential kaliedoscope of happenstance?

I never heard a story that sounded less like a conspiracy than the Obama story. His story is much more like the perils of Pauline than like the Manchurian Candidate. It’s a farrago of fantastic bouncing around almost like a lotto ball in the plexiglas air box — that’s not how conspiracies go.

Conspiracy means intentional, carefully planned, meticulously organized — Obama is an organized guy, but his life story is more like a lotto ball than like a conspirator.

I think that there’s a better than 50% chance that he was actually born in Hawai’i. That’s not enough to make him a natural born citizen. The rules in Hawai’i in 1961 were not the same as the rules in El Paso today. The mother would have to meet a certain residency requirement — a certain amount of time that she was a resident in the US prior to the birth for Obama to automatically become a US citizen just by being born in Hawai’i in 1961.

When she took him to Indonesia as a minor child under her care custody and control and became an Indonesian citizen herself by marrying an Indonesian man, after her divorce from the Kenya guy (Obama Sr.), Obama Jr. would conditionally have become an Indonesian citizen.

But if you have US citizenship — which maybe Obama Jr. did before being taken to Indonesia, you can’t lose it involuntarily — just by being dragged along with your mother to Indonesia.

On the other hand, in 1981, Obama was no longer a minor. He represented himself as an Indonesian when he entered Pakistan on an Indonesian passport. He was not kidnapped and taken to Pakistan. He was not mentally unfit. He was an adult travelling voluntarily and fully responsible for his own conduct. That conduct constitutes self-expatriation. The self-expatriation was reversable — he could come back and take the Oath of Allegiance and restore his US citizenship if he ever really had the right to that citizenship. That’s the document we need to see, the file record that shows Obama restoring his citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance.

Without that, there is strong evidence that he is not a citizen, and no evidence that he is a citizen. This is true regardless of what paperwork is ever found or authenticated about the place of his birth. Even if they find the long form vault copy of his birth certificate with doctor, nurse, or midwife signature on it.

If Obama is not a citizen, it doesn’t matter what lawsuits are filed. Any of the three branches of government are fully capable of telling the man he cannot be inaugurated. The best branch in this case is not the judicial branch — it is the legislative branch via the Electoral College.

The problem comes because the Electors are in a very poor position to do a proper investigation. They don’t have the time, the talent, or the resources. Condi Rice really ought to do the investigation — she can call Indonesia and Pakistan, and she can check her own files at the State Dept.

When the Electors meet the Chair will be the President of the Senate. He gets to open the votes and count them. He also has to certify the eligibility of the person designated as the winner. This should be done in the legislature, not in the courts (see also Article I section 5, which deals with a parallel issue in the legislature itself).

The facts are all that matter here — not which branch tells Barack he’s not the President — any branch will do — the legislature would be best, Condi can be helpful, by doing a proper investigation using her unique position. She has the duty because she’s in position to do the job — no American could do it more efficiently given the specific facts that need to be looked into in this case.

For the record let me re-say. If any part of Obama’s qualifications depend in any way on persons from Kenya, or any other foreign nation that does not have a tradition of science (here are the ones that do — All of old Europe plus Japan and China), then all the foreign affiants testimony should count as null — nothing, nada, nihil — I would not take it — why would you? I don’t care it’s the Archbishop of Mumbo Jumbo or the Pope of Mumbo Jumbo. It’s Mumbo Jumbo and we are Americans — and that sort of stuff does not get into our electoral process.

Here’s what counts.

1. Obama did or did not travel to Pakistan in 1981.

2. He did or did not do this on an Indonesian passport.

3. He was or was not 20 years old at the time, not a kidnapped person, not a minor, not a mentally infirm person.

4. He did or did not re-claim his US citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance as required by law.

These are four tiny litte facts not so inconceivable to verify one way or the other that a 100 Trillion dollar per year government could not possibly find $100 to go verify these facts one way or the other.

And yet, somehow, we can’t. The interest just is not there. We don’t care. We don’t know. It’s just too hard. Just send us some “share the wealth” kind of thing — maybe $500 or $1000 per month — we don’t know — we don’t care — just keep it coming.

That’s what I’m up against. Do I expect to win? Yes, I do! And my most earnest hope is to win in the Electoral College and not in the courts. It would be very wrong for American courts to meddle in here and tell us who can and cannot run for office — that’s how Pakistan and Iran and Iraq are run. We have a different system.

Let Condi Rice get the facts. Let the President of the Senate know the facts. Let all the candidates be told truthfully and with verity if they are elligible. Let the non-eligible candidates step back. Let the eligible candidate with most votes in the Electoral College step forward. Let us inaugurate the right person.

This message was approved by Eigernorthface 2000 hours 19 November 2008

Danney here is a re-post of a comment I made on the Keyes case thread today:

To Nickf: Thanks for your excellent comments — totally on point and food for thought. Here are my initial thoughts about what you’ve said:

1. If Obama is determined to be non-qualified in the Article II sense, then some of his electors might be free to vote for McCain as the next best choice right? If that happened, McCain could wind up with the majority of the electors plus one, right?

2. Similarly, they could go for Biden — sort of a draft Biden movement in the Electoral College. If Biden agrees, then he could come out with a majority plus one, and I guess he gets to name his Number 2 — which could be anybody, including even John McCain, if McCain wants that job, right?

3. They also could go for Hillary — she obviously wants the top job — if she got 90% of the Electors pledged to Obama, and 15% of the Electors pledged to McCain, she could wind up with a majority plus one right?

4. We do really vote for Vice President. It doesn’t count much in our minds, but it’s legally there on the ballot. The Obama pledged Electors are also pledged to Biden. So maybe Cy Pres would apply — they could just slide on over to vote Biden as Prez.

5. A do-over is not realistic in my humble opinion, but if that’s what the powers that be want, it sounds fair enough. I just don’t know if it’s practical.

6. Having the House decide sounds fair enough — is that what the Constitution requires if an ineligible person holds most of the Electors — I honestly do not know — but someone here might and could help us out on this.

7. On Condi doing the investigation and doing it right now I think you are incorrect about that. She would be the ideal person, because of the very practical reason that she could get to the real data faster and cheaper than any other American — a lot of it is right there in her office — the State Department after all must have some idea of who the US citizens are — if they don’t who would?

8. She doesn’t have to be the final word. She could just go get the data. The data speaks for itself. Who should it speak to?

9. I’m for the Electoral College as who it should speak to. Another poster on this site put the idea into my head that it’s only in places like Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan that the Courts play a very active role in saying who can and who cannot run for office. Article I section 5, which is sort of parallel to the present case, plus Article II about the Electoral College — my sense is that the intent of the Founders was that certain political questions are non-justiciable — that means that it’s not our style of government to have Courts decide them — our style is that some things must be wholly decided in a single branch, and not a process of checks and balances between branches, which could easily turn into a toxic feedback loop (like in Pakistan).

10. One final possibility is that come Inauguration Day, George W Bush and Dick Cheney could both resign a few hours before noon, Nancy Pelosi could step up as next in line. She would then be President by Constitutional succession. She would then be inaugurated simply by taking the Oath of Office as President. I don’t know how the Vice Presidency would be filled, possibly by appointment by the President, possibly by having the next in of succession fleet up with the Speaker of the House, or possibly by election by the House.

11. The whole idea of the Obama Campaign was change — big change. That’s the kind of situation where no doubt can be allowed to remain about the lawfulness of the President — whether or not for example he might be a foreigner, or otherwise ineligible under our Constitution. This matter would not go away. It would grow if any doubt remained on Inauguration Day.

12. That’s why Condi Rice needs to step in and get the real facts now. She should be going to the Federal Courts to get court orders that compel Obama to cooperate fully, to be deposed under oath, to turn over every scrap of paper he has relating to this matter, to appear before a Grand Jury if necessary. I agree with you that his stonewalling is very dumb, very destructive, if not criminal. I think the matter can be taken out of his hands — where’s the Attorney General while all this is happening? He and Condi should be working all out to get the facts on the table the the Electors can do the right thing — whatever that thing may be.

Danney: Here’s another re-post of a note I put up on the Keyes thread today:

1. Obama either does or does not have any paperwork that would be helpful beyond what he has already provided. I suspect he does not.

2. Some Department of the U.S. government, perhaps State, perhaps Justice either does or does not have an official governmental interest in finding out where Obama was born, where he travelled, and on what passports, and at what ages. I suspect there is at least one Department that has such an official interest, probably two.

3. A subpoena either can or cannot be issued to compel Obama to show all that he can show to shed light on these matters. I suspect a subpoena could be issued if anybody in an official position gave a rat’s ass about getting to the facts in this matter.

4. In the absence of laying the groundwork by a careful and timely investigation, the Electors will or will not be groping blindly in the dark to do the right thing. I suspect that we are a reactive nation not a proactive nation — Kattrina has to hit first, then two years later we begin to respond, so I think the Electors will be groping blindly in the dark wanting to do “right” but having no clue as to what that might be, and no way to get a clue, and no time to get a clue — like the AG and Secretary of State have ways and time now.

5. After Obama’s inauguration this whole issue either will or will not just blow over. I suspect it will not — every order he gives will be legally questioned, every Bill he signs. If Obama is a foreigner then he can never legally be President. The cost-sparing thing would be to find out one way or the other before he is installed in Office.

6. Berg and Keyes either do or do not have the clout and the right to get the job done. I suspect that even if they got together in a single lawsuit, the suit would be barred by the doctrine of the non-justiciable political question, the Supreme Court would bag out just like State and Justice are doing now.

7. The American people either give a rat’s ass about getting this right or they don’t. I suspect they don’t — they may be a few dozen bloggers out there in cyberspace who really care one way or the other, but that’s it. Well over 99.99% don’t care. They are busy trying to cope with a severe recession, put food on the table, pay the rent, or the mortgage. They hope that maybe Obama could bring about a “change” — maybe they could get something out of it. They are fatalistic, disconnected, alienated, cynical, mentally inert, intellectually asleep, civically AWOL — they just don’t know/don’t care (DKDC the new societal modality).

8. Historians either will or will not realize that the “troubles” in the Obama Administration could have been avoided by certain government officials doing their obvious duty — a timely and proactive investigative process laying the groundwork for a sure and certain outcome from the Electoral College proceedings. I suspect that historians will twig to this point, sometime around 2050 — they will start to write papers about it, maybe even books, or doctoral dissertations. To the ones who say rational things at that time — my hat’s off to them .. better late than never, I guess.

The message was approved by Eigernorthface 20 November 2008 2005 hrs EST

I respect Dr. Alan Keyes decision to request and pursue a writ of mandate (writ of mandamus) California Supreme Court, my wish is for success. I highly honor Dr. Keyes as a patriot and with service as ambassador.

As a respected jurist sir, you understand the conditions and legal procedures most likely will extend passed Mr. Obama taking the oath of office January of next year, hopefully not. The tragedy if this occurs would be most devastating to our nation much more then if constitutionally disqualified by Supreme Court judicial action.

If the Supremes grant cert on 1 Dec or shortly thereafter, and hear Berg on the merits of his standing case sometime in January, and remand the case back to Judge Surrick, sometime in February, then I think Surrick will say “Yea, OK he’s got standing, but this is a non-justiciable political question, case dismissed (again) — go away little man, see what the Supremes say now”.

Victory is the ball. You have to keep you eye on the ball.

The facts are 1000 times stronger than anything else that might affect this case. Therefore getting the facts by a proper, thorough, and timely investigation is the key to victory.

Who could do that? Condi Rice and AG Mukasey. They are the one’s who could get the facts, using adminstrative orders, Grand Juries, Subpoenas, the FBI, State Department Intelligence, and US Diplomats overseas.

So, what needs to happen is that the fact getters need to be petitioned (massively) to go get the facts, and have them ready in case the Electoral College is interested in the facts.

There will be a few electors who probably will care whether or not the person declared the winner is in fact eligible to be President. Somebody in that College — which will be chaired by the President of the Senate will say “Well are there any facts available on this matter?”

If Condi and Mukasey have done there jobs, there will be. If not, the electors will be groping blindly in the dark, with no time and no resources, no talent, and no personnel to get the facts.

So they will have to operate without facts. Maybe the DNC can come in and show the COLB, or maybe just send it to the Electors, via the internet.

We will make do with whatever is possible.

But the issue won’t go away. If Obama and Biden are inaugurated, then Biden would take over if Obama is later shown to be ineligible — that is clear in the Constitution. A lot of people think Joe Biden would make a wonderful President.

So if Obama slides in because nobody got the data together in time to prevent it, he would be subject to impeachment from day one, or as soon as the facts emerge clearly — and there would be plenty of motivation to go ahead and remove him from office, if that means Joe Biden steps up.

I don’t have any political goals in this matter. My only goal is the orderly conduct of the Federal government. That is best served by a fully informed Electoral College, so the right person gets inaugurated in the first place, and we start on January 20 2009 with a secure and well-founded new administration. Most of G.W. Bush’s cabinet would probably have to stay for 90 days, until their replacements could be found and cleared and confirmed. No big deal on that.

What would it cost Condi and Mukasey to just go get the facts now? Very little. Almost nothing. If the facts show that Obama is a US citizen, what would become of the investigative file? Nothing at all, it would go to the Archives. It would just say the same thing that is officially presumed to be true — so it has no surprize value — no real information content — at least nothing new that makes a difference.

The electors may or may not want to see the file. They may just read an Executive Summary — “Investigation was done by Sect’y State and AG and concludes that Obama is eligible”. They wouldn’t get eyestrain reading such an executuive summary — they wouldn’t have to set up special reading rooms. That could go on a 3 by 5 card. They could read it in less than 10 seconds.

As between the people who are petitioning for a full and fair investigation and Condi Rice (+the AG), who has got the problem? Are the petitoners all wearing little tin hats? Or, are the powers that be grossly and outrageously derelict in their obvious duty?

It comes down to a question of balance of costs and balance of harms — you remember that from tort law right. The party with the least harm and the lowest costs is the one who should alter their conduct — in other words Condi and Mukasey go do the investigation, don’t just sit there, hoping it all blows over, or that none of the Electors will care.

Danney — there’s a fellow named Strauss posting on the Keyes thread who may have some interesting ideas. Here is my response to his most recond posts:

Having served as an international lawyer for the Navy in the Philippines and in Africa, I agree with your assessment of the “evidence” from Kenya completely. Foreign witnesses, interrogated unskillfully, by reporters hoping to get a sensational scoop have no value in this matter. I count the grandmother’s evidence at nought.

I have repeatedly said I think there is a better than 50% chance Obama was born in Hawai’i. You tell me that officials there have looked at the vault records and confirm that the COLB is substantively accurate — OK I accept that.

When I was 20 years old, I knew better than to travel on a foreign passport and offer myself as an Indonesian. I knew that would constitute an abandonment of my American citizenship.

At the minimum Mr. Strauss I think you would have to agree it constitutes a “false official statement”.

Berg tells us that a person doing such an act — going to Pakistan and entering on an Indonesian passport can restore their US citizenship by taking the Oath of Allegiance. That sounds right. Berg, may be a little whacky, but he was the Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, so he probably knows how to find the law.

So then, it’s a matter of fact. Did Obama at any time after his visit to Pakistan in 1981 on an Indonesian passport take the Oath of Allegiance? It’s a “yes” or “no” question.

Should Condi answer it, or should I? Well, Condi has the data. She’s not an investigator, but she has hundreds of investigators working for her at the State Department. She could get more from Mukasey and the FBI. I, on the other hand have no duty, no organization, no access to the data, no resources. So, I say Condi and Mukasey should do the job.

Now you tell me that the electors don’t actually meet in the Congress — they just sort of send in their votes after meeting in the states. Well then I guess it’s pretty hopeless to expect them to do any investigation, right?

The business of the Oath of Allegiance is, perhaps a technicality. But when the Commandeer in Chief orders men into battle, that just based a technicality too — the mere technicality that he happens to be the Commander in Chief, right?

I have never said that Obama offerred himslf as a candidate, knowing that he was not an American. As you say, that would be a crime. It would require criminal mens rea. I have have said that Obama’s early life was a kaliedoscope of happenstance — no sort of conspiracy — more like a lotto ball in the plexiglas airbox. So I’m not suggesting criminal mens rea.

But I think Berg may have the technicality right — Obama is not an American under the law.

Even if this mattered to the electors, they will be in no position to do anything about it.

But Condi and Mukasey right now are in a position to find out. Start here “Barack, after you travelled to Pakistan, did you ever take the oath of allegiance to restore your US citizenship, and if so where di you do that?”

Then go here: “Hello, Clerk of Court, would you please check the historical files of your Court (or Consulate, or Legation) to see if Barack Obama aka any of his other half dozen names, ever took the Oath of Allegiance there? He says he did, and approximately on this date “……”

It’s a question of authority, I just don’t have the authority to get the answers. Condi and Mukasey do (he has a Deputy by the way, in case he’s feeling ill or infirm, which I understand he’s not).

The officials have the authority, the access, the position, and the resources. If I had these things, I would get the job done in 72 hours or less — no persons in Kenya would be involved — this is simple records check — a few phone calls, and somebody goes and looks in a file — an American file — no muss, no fuss, no bother — no drama for Obama.

Any organization that would have someone like me for a member, I don’t know that I could join. Not only do I not have an organization, I’m not a member of any organization, church, political party, or even local Bar Association. The only memberships I have are in the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court and a few Federal and Circuit Courts, and COMA. Sort of a non-joiner. When I put my little tinfoil hat on, I do it all by myself.

I’m looking for the low energy path here — the low cost low conflict path. Just ask the right fact getters to get the facts and do it now while it’s timely and cost sparing. Berg is either right, or he’s not about the expatriation issue.

The problem with letting it slide is that it won’t stay slid. It will rattle around in the Courts until somebody gets to the bottom of it. If Berg has the law wrong, now would be a good time to point that out. If Berg’s facts are mistaken, now would be a good time to show that.

Let’s start with Obama born in Hawai’i. Let’s proceed to Obama has never had any mens rea to commit a crime by falsely offering himself as an candidate for any office for which he is ineligible. With those matters behind us, let us seek rational dialogue, and a sensible course of conduct — Mr. Strauss you seem like a rational enough guy – how about it?

I have several reasons for addressing the issue with this letter. I do highly agree with you on the course to take and that is a passionate position pursued. This I will continue.

The reasons for the letter are first in my study I am graded on letters such as this. If by chance my request is honored so much the better. Thanks for your suggestion on addition of Dr. Keyes to join would strengthen the case.

I have not lost focus on your idea to compel Secretary Rice. I continue to get request and have modified the letter addressed to her as you suggested as well.

It is also good to leave no stone unturned as an addition my studies requirement is met.

Danney: Be sure to include in your study the fact that today I changed my mind about the Berg and Keyes cases. The only part of either of those cases that ever seemed meritorious was the part about the expatriation by use of the Indonesian passport in 1981. This Strauss person on the Keyes site gave me a little education on that subject, so now knowing better, I choose a better course of conduct. When my understanding of the facts changes, I change my mind. When my mind changes, what I do changes. It’s a sort of feedback process with reality, I call it learning, the thing that life is for (per Joni).

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARD OF EVIDENCE

As already noted, the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship. The Department has a uniform administrative standard of evidence based on the premise that U.S. citizens intend to retain United States citizenship when they obtain naturalization in a foreign state, subscribe to a declaration of allegiance to a foreign state, serve in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or accept non-policy level employment with a foreign government.

DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS APPLICABLE

In light of the administrative premise discussed above, a person who:

1. is naturalized in a foreign country;

2. takes a routine oath of allegiance to a foreign state;

3. serves in the armed forces of a foreign state not engaged in hostilities with the United States, or

4. accepts non-policy level employment with a foreign government,

and in so doing wishes to retain U.S. citizenship need not submit prior to the commission of a potentially expatriating act a statement or evidence of his or her intent to retain U.S. citizenship since such an intent will be presumed.

End quote:

Two observations. Travel on a foreign passport is not listed, and “the actions listed above can cause loss of U.S. citizenship only if performed voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship.” Oh, and the SC has ruled in another case, that when parents make a decision to give up citizenship for their children, it does not remove US citizenship.

Try another way.

Re: Now you tell me that the electors don’t actually meet in the Congress — they just sort of send in their votes after meeting in the states. Well then I guess it’s pretty hopeless to expect them to do any investigation, right?

That’s right as far as the electors are concerned. You could do the investigation for them and send them the data. I believe that their names are usually published, but you have to do the research in each of the states (and DC and Puerto Rico).

Posted by: smrstrauss at November 21, 2008 08:38 PM

——————————————————————————–

Re: “The business of the Oath of Allegiance is, perhaps a technicality.”

No, I think it is important. If you are saying that if a person who was, say, 34 years old, and took the oath of allegiance to the constitution was breaking that oath because he knew that he was too young to be president, I’m not sure I go along.

It seems a little like the presidents who took oaths to support the constitution back during the time of prohibition (which was a constitutional amendment remember?) and yet they took drinks.

You recall that the oath says that the president must swear:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

That means he has to preserve the constitution and protect it – but where does it say obey it?

In any case, we are talking theory. There is no evidence that Obama was born in Kenya or lost his citizenship.

Posted by: smrstrauss at November 21, 2008 08:50 PM

——————————————————————————–

Re: “Any organization that would have someone like me for a member, I don’t know that I could join.”

That’s Groucho’s joke. “I wouldn’t be a member of any organization that would accept me as a member.”

Okay, you need not join. But if what you want to get done is to get done, then there should be an organization. If not, well, I’m not sorry. But, as I said before, I do welcome being proved wrong. PROVED.

Posted by: smrstrauss at November 21, 2008 09:04 PM

——————————————————————————–

Re: I think that there’s a better than 50% chance that he was actually born in Hawai’i. That’s not enough to make him a natural born citizen. The rules in Hawai’i in 1961 were not the same as the rules in El Paso today. The mother would have to meet a certain residency requirement — a certain amount of time that she was a resident in the US prior to the birth for Obama to automatically become a US citizen just by being born in Hawai’i in 1961.”

Re born in the USA and not a citizen. Sorry, all wrong. If he was born in the USA, he is a citizen and natural born. Anyone born in the USA is a citizen except for a few minor exceptions such as children of foreign diplomats.

To: nickf — Who it goes to if not Obama depends entirely on when the proof comes in that Obama is not qualified (if it does). Before the inauguration — it’s anybody’s guess — I have no idea — the Electors or the House would get to pick somebody I think. After the inauguration, it would go to Biden. It’s academic how Obama might be characterized in the interim (between the inauguration and the discovery of ineligibility), but for the sake of argument, I think your idea is right, but academic — it’s like Aquinas and the Angels and the pin.

To Mr Strauss: I appreciate that Obama could not lose his citizenship by being dragged off to Indonesia by his mother. It would be assumed that a minor did not intend the loss of his US citizenship, with or without any sort of Oath later on.

I’m not sure that you are right about the Hawai’i birth being disposative. Berg has some issues, he put in his complaint, he talks about what the rules were in Hawai’i in 1961, and how the mother may not have met the residency requirements for the birth to create an automatic US citizen. I don’t know. I’ll accept provisionally what you say about this, but keep an eye on what Berg says as well. The facts in this case are very complex, the father being Kenyan, the mother being a globetrotting traveller like anyone could see who followed her story. I would need to hear from an expert in Hawai’i law, before I could fully and unconditionally agree with you on this point.

The tough issue is whether a 20 year old using an Indonesian passport to enter Pakistan has done an act that speaks for itself as a statement that renounces his US citizenship.

I read the law you sent me very carefully, and closely, and try to figure out its spirit — the general intent it embodies. Then I combine that with the ancient rule propounded by Blackstone which is that: “The law abhors a forfeiture”.

That seems to be the reason why the conditions for loss of US citizenship are drafted so narrowly, so specifically, not the kind of thing to be inferred from implicit possibilities, but the kind of thing that must be explicit, crystal clear at the time of its occurance.

It wasn’t like that when Obama went to Pakistan in 1981. Things were not always crystal clear for me when I was 20 years old — maybe they weren’t for Barack either. So inferring some sort of massive forfeiture on him based on what appears to be arguably the objective intent of his conduct, may not be fair.

Well, I am fair. So, you’ve convinced me. I will cease and desist from asking Condi Rice or AG Mukasey to conduct rigorous investigations. As this matter is laid to rest in my mind, it’s clear that the DNC and Obama and the FEC have failed to take care that these considerations be made plain so Americans can rest easy in their hearts about them.

The cases may continue to moil, wrangle, and churn up some dust and heat, but not with my approval or support. The whole idea of asking questions, is to get answers. When satisfactory answers come back, the question is put to rest. The questing process is more like an invitation to receive information than like a challenge to a fight. I don’t issue counterfeit invitations. If I say I’m open to new knowledge — I actually am.

So, that’s it, I’m wiser now, thanks!

This message was approved by Eigernorthface 22 November 2008 0002 hrs EST

Danney — Actually Strauss makes a stronger point even than that — Obama never lost his US citizenship — lack of voluntariness — the INA rules are quite clear — there must be explicit and crystal clear voluntariness — not just an act that seems inconsistent with US citizenship. Here’s my latest message to Strauss, but skip over to the Keyes thread and read the law that Strauss posted for me — the detailed INA rules.

Fair-er my God to thee … Fair … er .. to Thee! I’m with that. Socrates used to say he wanted to become more filled with the spirit of Justice every day — such was the proper progress of a human life — John Bunyan might say a pilgrim’s progress, Chaucer might call it our journey to Canterbury.

On legacy admissions, I approve of them under two conditions. 1. They must result in major gifts to the College or University and 2. The student getting admitted that way has to meet the minimum standards for admission. By letting that student in, 100 other students are paid for. The impact on educational mission is a net positive, so, as a policy matter, it’s not great policy, but it’s good enough policy.

On Obama and his opponents — I think he’s head and shoulders above them, literally and figuratively. He’s got AKGRET (sounds like accurate — my own acronym to describe his unique selling proposition which in an Uncanny Knack for Getting it Right Every Time AKGRET — rhymes with accurate).

On the Secretary of the Treasury appointment — it’s a display of Obama’s AKGRET trait. He keeps up that way, he can make the country better, maybe heal the world.

Yes, Hawai’i is part of USA. Yes, Federal law applies. But it’s the Federal law that applied in 1961 in Hawai’i that counts, not the Federal law that applies in El Paso today. If, under Federal law in 1961 in Hawai’i the parent giving birth had to meet a residency requirement for the birth to give rise to an automatic US citizen, then that’s the law that counts. If you could assure me that Federal law in every state in 1961 said that any baby (apart from the rare exceptions you mentioned) born in that state became a US citizen, then that whole line of reasoning in the Berg complaint would be decisively exploded — poof! it’s gone. That’s what’s needed — erroneous ideas should be decisively put out of their misery, that way we can know the truth and be free and light in our hearts.

My consternation and the DNC abides, in spite of my renewed endeavor to be ever more fair and just. They should have figured this out a year ago, written detailed reports on it, and filed them with the Court on the same day that Berg and Keyes and whoever else filed their cases. “Be Prepared” — the boy scout thing — how dumb would the DNC have to be to not anticipate this as an issue, and do some detailed work, like you have done Mr. Strauss to head it (and me) off. I look forward to the day that I can have positive feelings about the DNC, and their strategic insight and managerial leadership.

Your basic argument is totally right. The spirit of the law is to avoid a forfeiture. In this case we are talking about a 20 year old kid raised in Indonesia — what does he know about passports and expatriation – nothing right? So what could he intend? Nothing. So did he explicitely and voluntarily give up his citizenship? No. So did he give it up at all — no under the law — if the Hawai’i birth thing goes as you say it does, which I have no reason to doubt at this point, although the language in the Berg complaint still needs to be analysed and refuted in my humble opinion — the residency rules that Berg claims applied at that time in that place.

So if he had it and did not give it up, what Oath is required? None. In any case the Oath of Allegiance and the Oath that Obama took when joining the US Senate are substantively similar. If content inferred from actions would be good enough to put him out of his citizenship, then the same reasoning could put him back in. Any fairminded person I think would see that by taking the Oath required to assume a seat in the U.S. Senate Obama was implicitely asserting his continuing citizenship in and allegiance to the USA. But that argument is not necessary, if what you’ve told me is true — he never lost it — no voluntariness.

We, I think agree that the Africa testimony is pure mumbo-jumbo, and goes right in the trash. It’s not a question of intending to lie. It’s more a question of being raised in a culture in which there simply is no concept of an “objective truth” — truth that is somehow different from who is asking the question and what is their power status relative to the interrogatee, and what’s the chance of getting a protein bisquit out of this transaction before sundown. I served in Oman East Africa, for the Navy, as a lawyer — I understand Protein Bisquit Speech (PBS for a Brave New World).

I still care about the issue, but I’m satisfied. I was sure this question was going to turn on the facts of the case — hence my letter to Condi Rice to go get the facts. Now I find that actually the case turns on the law, as you’ve shown it to me. Lord Keynes said it best “When the facts change, I change my mind … what do you do?”

Again, thanks! It’s people with a sense of detail and precise thought that make America work. We don’t let things slide, we chase them down, and find out what’s right. Obama looks right, so my hat’s off to smrstrauss for the energy given and the information and value added.

This message was approved by Eigernorthface 22 November 2008, 1226 hrs EST

I had a great conversation with an attorney today. She said, using my own words, follow intent, who is Berg, Martin and Keyes and what do they hope to accomplish? Yes they claim to be great patriots and stand for the constitution. But what really is the hidden agenda? Why not keep things quiet? If you are planning an attack do you broadcast your plan? Would you not think they are planning a future with political aspirations? If they loose and most likely they may they gain because emotions play on the public. Great conversation and opened my eyes a bit.

She said clearly Obama with his resources will have no problem knowing already what they have exposed in the open.

This too was pondered. I listen to Rush once and a while sometimes I think he has too big of an ego but he makes since. I asked a friend that is a big fan. What did Rush have to say about Berg vs Obama? He said Rush mentioned it briefly saying it did not clear the threshold of his stink test meaning he has a problem with it. I am sure with his opposition to Obama and this was something worth the effort he would be spending a lot of time with it.

To Danney — This is a response to Strauss posted on the Keyes thread a few minutes ago, I thought you might like to see it:

To: Mr. Strauss:

Yes, I know the reading room idea is not the law. I’m proposing it. Let’s make it the law.

No it does not have to be the law for all past Presidents.

Yes it’s Ok to make it the law for all future Presidents.

Yes factual inquiries are made in the directions where there are factual questions, and not in directions where there are no factual questions.

Why didn’t people want to know by the securest possible evidence where JFK was born? This is no deep mystery. He came from a big New England family, many of whom were present within a very short time after his birth. His mother and father were well known to the community. Same with FDR, same with George Washington.

So your idea that if a detailed inquiry is appropriate for Obama, then it must have been appropriate for all prior Presidents, Truman, Eisenhower, all the way back, is mistaken — it’s not illegal for you to think that but it’s a mistake, it’s not logical.

Detailed inquiries are made where detailed inquiries are called for. If they are not called for, they are not made.

If they are made in the case of Obama, then basic fairness would suggest tnat they should be made in for all Presidents going forward from here. It’s not logical in every case, but it would be equitable. Once we decide we need to look into these things carefully for one fellow, then all the persons that come after should get the same scrutiny. Equal protection/Due process basic fairness it doesn’t matter how you write the brief just get the bottom line right. I was hell on my clerks — they had to make the law be whatever way I wanted it to be. Well we won most of our cases, so apparently they wrote good briefs.

It wouldn’t even really have to be a law. Obama could just decide it was a rational and prudent thing to do, and just have it done by Executive Order. Order #1 — To clear away the bugaboo about me being a foreigner it is ordered that a reading room be set up in Hawai’i containing … etc … including my vault birth certificate … etc … etc … et cetera (like in the King and I with Yul Brenner and Julie Andrews).

All sensible behavior by all human beings does not necessarily have to arise by compulsion of the law. Quote me if you like on that.

Getting the information out there would be beneficial to USA. Presidents should seek to benefit USA. Therefore President Obama should get the information out there. This syllogism would be Barbara in the First Figure — see Aritotle.

Being born in Hawai’i is the key that unlocks the Golden Door, so if he’s got it, the Privacy Act can be waived. Just stop the tinfoil hat gang from creating mischief in the courts that does nobody any good and that could get complicated and do some real harm.

The stories about the Kenya visit I think have been correctly analysed by Strauss (your own self), and surely they are Berg’s and Corsi’s inventions with no plausible basis in fact. None of that material has to be addressed in the reading room or anywhere else as far as I’m concerned. A global chase after hearsay-based red herrings is no part of our tradition, and this is not a good time to begin a new tradition in that direction. But if we are just talking about waiving the Privacy Act, so we can have a low-conflict no drama inauguration, I don’t see why Obama would have to be legally compelled to get that done — he could just do it. It’s not like he’s giving up any of his Presidential powers. It would not affect the Office of the Presidency one bit. It would just be a case of one President being compliant with the wishes of the People to be fully assured of his citizenship — not a big deal — unless somebody makes it a big deal. Obama could take the wind out of Berg and Keyes with little effort, and he should do so, in my humble opinion.

For the conspiracy theorists I offer this modest proposal. A national tinfoil hat making contest (I will supply origami diagrams). The winning hat judged by a panel of persons who have been probed by aliens aboard their spacecraft should have all necessary antennae and force field projector cones. The winner gets an “All Access Pass” to area 51, and this includes the right to take samples of any remains of aliens found in underground storage facilities at Area 51.

I’m not a big believer in secrets — unless they are about special forces operations that are ongoing, or covert intelligence operatives in the field and active, or who have recently been active and run agents abroad.

Sunshine is the best disinfectant. I’m not saying that Berg and Keyes are bad people. But in this case they would have nothing to work with if the Obama legal team would find a way to just get the documents out there where folks can see them.

Lawyers always seem to find ways to keep each other employed, and the chalk it up to high moral purpose or preserving the law. But to ordinary folks it looks like gratuitous vexaciousness and contrariness.

Let us not be contrary. The best way is just agree with my rational suggestions — be affable, not obtuse. Reason is the light. Using it makes the world brighter.

This message was approved by Eigernorthface 23 November 2008, 2120 hrs EST

I looks to me like, if you have the right lawyers, you can get by with anything in the United States. Obama should produce information requested or be tried for fraud or pergery. He proved that he has something to hide, or he would have immediately produced evidence requested.

I looks to me like, if you have the right lawyers, you can get by with anything in the United States. Obama should produce information requested or be tried for fraud or pergery. He proved that he has something to hide, or he would have immediately produced evidence requested.

Light on the subject in question yes leaves little room to vex or annoy. Most buy into a viewpoint. Either object reason is lost for the satisfaction of positioning, gratification of ego, emotion or objectivity stand to question intention.

It is much easier to follow with blinds then with examining spectacles. Obviously the election heavily hinged on this. Truth is always a hard subject, to see the truth leave no room for flawed concepts. The truth veiled finds those willing to see only the mask with no interest to remove that of which hides.

The task has two sides. It must defend the truth at time and other defend the non truth. You stand accused before a panel of piers. I chose some wisely the opposition chose some wisely. The task to unveil the truth or to paint the veil to hide the truth. If the veil is removed then makes increasing difficulty to cast a doubt.

I find that the Hawai’i authorities say they have gone back into the vault and examined Obama’s original vault long form birth certificate, and that it is substantively consistent with the COLB which we have seen circulating about on the internet, and that Obama was indedd born in Hawai’i and not somewhere else.

Weighing that evidence is fairly easy. What chance is there that very heavy penalties would come down on the Hawai’i authorities if they were found to be lying about something like that. I think 100% chance, right?

Those authorities allege that there is a long form vault copy and that they have seen it. How risky would it be for them to declare such a thing exists, if it does not exist? Very risky, right. Somebody might come out with a subpoena, or Obama might waive his Privacy Act rights, all kinds of things could happen that would put the Hawai’i authorities in the path of big trouble if they said they had seen and verified and were correctly relaying the substance of a document that did not exist.

Do bureaucrats ordinarily plunge themselves and their careers into huge risks for the sake of people they don’t know? I think not.

If Obama was in fact born in Hawai’i is there anything in the Berg or Keyes complaints that would constitute an ex-patriation?

Not according to the INA law (previously posted by Strauss and by me). That law makes it extremely difficult to expatriate oneself. There’s a very short list of very specific things and they all have to be accompanied by specific intent that is explicit and on the record, not just implied or implicit.

If Obama never lost his citizenship by his travels to Pakistan on and Indonesian passport at age 20, then he never need to take the Oath of Allegiance to recalim his citizenship which was never lost.

If he was born in Hawai’i, which in 1961 was a state, just like any other state, then he was a natural born citizen. The mother’s residency is not relevant — those rules only apply if the baby is born outside the USA, but Hawai’i was inside the USA, so they don’t apply — it doesn’t matter where she lived before Obama was born, or for how long.

Because the Berg and Keyes cases are totally devoid of merit, and because my research into the law and my analysis revealed that to me, I withdrew my approval and support from those cases about a week ago.

Rational people do not persist on a path that is shown to be without merit. Only people whose minds simply cannot be affected by the facts continue to believe things that the facts strongly suggest are not true. When the facts change, I change my mind. I once thought the Berg and Keyes cases were potentially valid. Now the facts have changed, so I don’t think those cases are potentially valid — I think they are clearly invalid and unworthy of my support.

This message was approved by Eigernorthface 25 November 2008, 1210 hrs EST

I don’t even have to see it myself. If the Supreme Court looked at the long form birth certificate and said he was born on Hawaian soil, that would be good enough for me. Unfortunately, there have been too many lies and too many documents withheld to take it for granted even if some folks in Hawaii say it’s so. Obana’s shady past and very rich friends make it entirely possible for him to buy what he wants if that’s possible.

I agree that Keyes, Berg and Martin have a motive be it for political or not. There is something compelling them on above the constitutional adherents claimed. Fame or gain with a popular movement, who knows?

Questions for you as I do highly respect and appreciate your opinion.

If indeed vexatious litigation (Pearson v. Chung) or could be. Why did Judge Surrick make no mention in his dismissal? I would ponder, do please correct me if I am wrong, would be an easier rout on merit issue. In case Pearson v. Chung yes ridicules damage claims but how much more ridicules to ask removal, loss of campaign donation mounting to $600million plus and for disenfranchisement for those who voted for presidential candidate? Being the precedent case I believe they would fear heavy sanctions against Berg, Keyes and Martin.

If indeed that be the case. There is a conference of SCOTUS judges going on Dec.5. Would they not look first and weigh in on merit? Seems the importance factor would address possible merit before hand.

I still do not understand if the question be answered simply by product of proof, possible sanction action against accusers and a wash of public rumor. Why has that not been done in light not still given darkness or fog?

I was reading my last comments forgive that obviously the Hennessy Ellipse my brother sent me I had a bit to much and that was speaking.

Surrick’s dismissal was right. Vexacitous litigation is a minor issue. The Constitutional issue are 1. Standing and 2 Political Question (Non-justiciable). The judge had sense enougn to know this was not a minior case of piddling consequence, so he didn’t not dismiss it as a judge might dismiss a minor case of piddling consequence. He picked out a Constitutional basis. He had 2 available. He still has one left. The second is actually stronger than the first.

Even if Berg somehow has standing his case might still be non-justiciable because it’s a “political question” per the US Constitution.

And my own personal opinion is that even if it was tried on its merits in the District Court it would fail because it lacks merit.

If I thought the case had merit, I would want to see it tried. The law does not support Berg’s claims or Keyes’ claims.

So, to my way of thinking these are junk cases, not worth trying.

The Supremes I think will figure this out on December 5th or whenever. They will deny Certiorari as well they should.

We put this in the junk pile. That’s the right place for it in my humble opinion.

I see your point it was again well explained. Thanks to Mr. Strauss as well as clearly he pointed out iron clad rejection to claim of citizenship or non-citizenship. I have learned most important lessons.

Lessons learned

Do not to be so quick to jump on a band wagon as the band maybe playing the wrong song.

Always question intention even given I support a possible outcome.

Do the homework and that I have prided myself in but in this case was lacking a bit.

Think as if I was defending this case.

This was a very good discussion I hope to be invited to more. I will conclude my project after case closed and work an analogy from there.

Thanks again I have a heads up but who knows what possible can transpire.

Good working with you Danney. You learned the same lesson I did, so we learned together. When everything looks like it’s going one way, a lot of times its actually going the other way. Homework is the right idea. You do it with diligence, and you just keep doing it, and if you find while you’re doing it, that everything that seemed one way is actually a different way — that’s the biggest payoff you can get from doing homework diligently — you get saved from making a mistake — you learn something new, like I did, like you did, in our analysis — with the help of Strauss — of this complex matter. Our hats are off to Strauss, and our respect as colleagues in study abides.

This message was approved by Eigernorthface 26 November 2008, 1650 hrs EST

I say get on with your lives. President elect Obama is an American citizen and nothing can change that. As all of you are aware, anyone can file a law suit. I don’t think this case will be overturned on appeal.

The People have the right to know. This is not just a country where leaders hide deep dark secrets when they not only can but should prove by the law of the land that they are eligible. No one should be above the law in any capacity. If we have to supply our proof in general applications how much more should the highest office be required.

If it has not been done then who is to say that tyranny can not rule? If Obama is truly eligible under the constitution I respect his election even I profoundly disagree with his ways. My hope that the judicial contamination will be limited or not contaminated. But through the history of those of whom share Obama’s ideology great damage has been done. Legislation from the bench instead of properly done is rampant. The constitution gets in the way so it is circumvented.

I do not blame The People who demand this. Even though it has been limited we still have the right to regress our grievances and be heard.

“Any and every American must have “standing” to demand—and must demand, both in judicial fora and in the fora of public opinion—that Obama immediately and conclusively prove himself eligible for “the Office of President.”

Utterly imbecilic as an alternative is the judge’s prescription in Berg v. Obama that,

[i]f, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like [Berg]. Until that time, voters do not have standing to bring the sort of challenge that [Berg] attempts to bring * * * .

Recall that this selfsame judge held that Berg has no constitutional “Case[ ]” because he has no “standing,” and that he has no “standing” because he has no “injury in fact,” only a “generalized” “grievance.” This purports to be a finding of constitutional law: namely, that constitutionally no “Case[ ]” exists. How, then, can Congress constitutionally grant “standing” to individuals such as Berg, when the courts (assuming the Berg decision is upheld on appeal) have ruled that those individuals have no “standing”? If “standing” is a constitutional conception, and the courts deny that “standing” exists in a situation such as this, and the courts have the final say as to what the Constitution means—then Congress lacks any power to contradict them. Congress cannot instruct the courts to exercise jurisdiction beyond what the Constitution includes within “the judicial Power.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 173-180 (1803).

In fact, though, a Congressional instruction is entirely unnecessary. Every American has what lawyers call “an implied cause of action”—directly under Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the Constitution—to require that anyone standing for “the Office of President” must verify his eligibility for that position, at least when serious allegations have been put forward that he is not eligible, and he has otherwise refused to refute those allegations with evidence that should be readily available if he is eligible. That “Case[ ]” is one the Constitution itself defines. And the Constitution must be enforceable in such a “Case[ ]” in a timely manner, by anyone who cares to seek enforcement, because of the horrendous consequences that will ensue if it is flouted.

What are some of those consequences?

First, if Obama is not “a natural born Citizen” or has renounced such citizenship, he is simply not eligible for “the Office of President” (Article II, Section 1, Clause 4). That being so, he cannot be “elected” by the voters, by the Electoral College, or by the House of Representatives (see Amendment XII). For neither the voters, nor the Electors, nor Members of the House can change the constitutional requirement, even by unanimous vote inter sese (see Article V). If, nonetheless, the voters, the Electors, or the Members of the House purport to “elect” Obama, he will be nothing but an usurper, because the Constitution defines him as such. And he can never become anything else, because an usurper cannot gain legitimacy if even all of the country aid, abets, accedes to, or acquiesces in his usurpation.

Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it.

Third, his purported “Oath or Affirmation” being perjured from the beginning, Obama’s every subsequent act in the usurped “Office of President” will be a criminal offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 242, which provides that:

[w]hoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States * * * shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, * * *, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined * * * or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

Plainly enough, every supposedly “official” act performed by an usurper in the President’s chair will be an act “under color of law” that necessarily and unavoidably “subjects [some] person * * * to the deprivation of [some] rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution * * * of the United States”—in the most general case, of the constitutional “right[ ]” to an eligible and duly elected individual serving as President, and the corresponding constitutional “immunit[y]” from subjection to an usurper pretending to be “the President.

Fourth, if he turns out to be nothing but an usurper acting in the guise of “the President,” Obama will not constitutionally be the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (see Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). Therefore, he will be entitled to no obedience whatsoever from anyone in those forces. Indeed, for officers or men to follow any of his purported “orders” will constitute a serious breach of military discipline—and in extreme circumstances perhaps even “war crimes.” In addition, no one in any civilian agency in the Executive Branch of the General Government will be required to put into effect any of Obama’s purported “proclamations,” “executive orders,” or “directives.”

Fifth, as nothing but an usurper (if he becomes one), Obama will have no conceivable authority “to make Treaties”, or to “nominate, and * * * appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not * * * otherwise provided for [in the Constitution]” (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2). And therefore any “Treaties” or “nominat[ions], and * * * appoint[ments]” he purports to “make” will be void ab initio, no matter what the Senate does, because the Senate can neither authorize an usurper to take such actions in the first place, nor thereafter ratify them. One need not be a lawyer to foresee what further, perhaps irremediable, chaos must ensue if an usurper, even with “the Advice and Consent of the Senate”, unconstitutionally “appoint[s] * * * Judges of the Supreme Court” whose votes thereafter make up the majorities that wrongly decide critical “Cases” of constitutional law.

Sixth, and perhaps most importantly, Congress can pass no law while an usurper pretends to occupy “the Office of President.” The Constitution provides that “[e]very Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States” (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Not to an usurper posturing as “the President of the United States,” but to the true and rightful President. If no such true and rightful President occupies the White House, no “Bill” will or can, “before it become a Law, be presented to [him].” If no “Bill” is so presented, no “Bill” will or can become a “Law.” And any purported “Law” that the usurper “approve[s]” and “sign[s],” or that Congress passes over the usurper’s “Objections,” will be a nullity. Thus, if Obama deceitfully “enters office” as an usurper, Congress will be rendered effectively impotent for as long as it acquiesces in his pretenses as “President.”

Seventh, if Obama does become an usurper posturing as “the President,” Congress cannot even impeach him because, not being the actual President, he cannot be “removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” (see Article II, Section 4). In that case, some other public officials would have to arrest him—with physical force, if he would not go along quietly—in order to prevent him from continuing his imposture. Obviously, this could possibly lead to armed conflicts within the General Government itself, or among the States and the people.

Eighth, even did something approaching civil war not eventuate from Obama’s hypothetical usurpation, if the Establishment allowed Obama to pretend to be “the President,” and the people acquiesced in that charade, just about everything that was done during his faux “tenure in office” by anyone connected with the Executive Branch of the General Government, and quite a bit done by the Legislative Branch and perhaps the Judicial Branch as well, would be arguably illegitimate and subject to being overturned when a constitutional President was finally installed in office. The potential for chaos, both domestically and internationally, arising out of this systemic uncertainty is breathtaking.

The underlying problem will not be obviated if Obama, his partisans in the Democratic Party, and his cheerleaders and cover-up artists in the big media simply stonewall the issue of his (non)citizenship and contrive for him to win the Presidential election. The cat is already out of the bag and running all over the Internet. If he continues to dodge the issue, Obama will be dogged with this question every day of his purported “Presidency.” And inevitably the truth will out. For the issue is too simple, the evidence (or lack of it) too accessible. Either Obama can prove that he is “a natural born Citizen” who has not renounced his citizenship; or he cannot. And he will not be allowed to slip through with some doctored “birth certificate” generated long after the alleged fact. On a matter this important, Americans will demand that, before its authenticity is accepted, any supposed documentary evidence of that sort be subjected to reproducible forensic analyses conducted by reputable, independent investigators and laboratories above any suspicion of being influenced by or colluding with any public official, bureaucracy, political party, or other special-interest organization whatsoever.

Berg v. Obama may very well end up in the Supreme Court. Yet that ought to be unnecessary. For Obama’s moral duty is to produce the evidence of his citizenship sua sponte et instanter. Otherwise, he will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his refusal to do so.

Of course, if Obama knows that he is not “a natural born Citizen” who never renounced his American citizenship, then he also knows that he and his henchmen have perpetrated numerous election-related frauds throughout the country—the latest, still-ongoing one a colossal swindle targeting the American people as a whole. If that is the case, his refusal “to be a witness against himself” is perfectly explicable and even defensible on the grounds of the Fifth Amendment. Howsoever justified as a matter of criminal law, though, Obama’s silence and inaction will not obviate the necessity for him to prove his eligibility for “the Office of President.” The Constitution may permit him to “take the Fifth;” but it will not suffer him to employ that evasion as a means to usurp the Presidency of the United States.”

Very simple…Obama allows the State of Hawaii to release his original, “long form” Birth Certificate. The “Certificate of Live Birth, that he supposedly released, besides being an obvious forgery, is NOT proof of Natural Born Citizenship, since this same said form can also be obtained by people born outside of the US and brought here and simply registered.

Our office recognizes your concern and we agree with Attorney Berg’s assessments as such we have been in communication and jointly support this effort.

Our complaint has as well addressed with Attorney Bergs held the same concerns we have a joint statement with Attorney Berg held on December 8, 2008 at the National Press Club Conference where Attorney Taitz as Attorney Berg has addressed the public in this forum. This statement will explain better our position in detail.

Don’t think it too deeply, people. It is simple. No proof of U.S. Birth, No legitimate Presidency. Simple as that. The first comment said it. If ALL are wronged, than ALL have standing, as opposed to NONE.

Those who scoff it off are embarrassed to take up a cause that may be proven against.

Stand up for the constitution. No matter how “silly” you think it may be. Imagine taking that stance on something that was popular and politically correct. Ignoring this issue is the measure of just that: our ignorance.

It is being done so far many of our active and inactive duty members of the armed services have taken a stand. http://www.defendourfreedoms.us/ We have joined with Dr. Orly Taitz attorney and filed our own law suit dealing with the oath to defend our great constitution. Please feel free to join our effort.